Pinkwashing Turns on Itself with Breast Cancer Awareness Gun

This article blames inanimate objects (guns) for the deaths of women instead of the people who use those objects.

It's sad when finding a cure for cancer is less important than someone's anti-gun agenda.

When us gunny types see that pink gun, we think it's a WOMAN's gun, not the attacker's gun. Some women are gunnies themselves (many of whom think pink guns are silly, by the way). Male gunnies have wives or girlfriends, female friends and neighbors and colleagues, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers and aunts. We want them safe.

With reasonable training and practice, an armed woman's chances of surviving an attack are very good (naturally, everybody should avoid dangerous places as much as possible -- it's always safest never to be attacked at all). Any normal woman with a gun is infinitely more dangerous to a rapist than to herself. I know women who shoot. They are competent and confident people. Come to think of it, pretty much all of the women I know who *don't* shoot are competent and confident, too. Most adults are. If they can be trusted with a car -- and women wrap their cars around a lot less trees than men do -- they can be trusted with firearms.

Men are bigger and stronger than women. When a man attacks a woman, he probably doesn't need the advantage of a weapon. The woman probably does need that advantage. Even if we could make all guns vanish (and that's not possible), unarmed women would still have as much to fear as they do now. If both parties have weapons, she's at least got an even chance, which she wouldn't have if neither were armed.

So. Bottom line: What that gun signifies to S&W and to Julie Goloski is enabling women to defend themselves, and that is absolutely consistent with supporting breast cancer research. I know it signifies something else to you. I get that. You may disagree with our reasoning, but the whole debate will make more sense to everybody if you at least know what our reasoning is.